MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening everyone. I'm an editor with larouchepac.com, and I'd like to welcome you once again to a live webcast featuring Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. This is the fourth in our ongoing series of webcasts which we started a month ago and will be continuing all the way through the November 6 elections which are now only ten days away. So, there will be one more of these broadcasts between now and the November 6 elections. However, I'd also like to announce that this coming Tuesday there will be a very special event, featuring Mr. LaRouche also, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. That's Oct. 30 at 9:30 in the morning.

So, our broadcast tonight will be very significant in its own right, but also most be seen as a crucial to that event which will be occurring this coming Tuesday.

Now, our format will follow the same as it has previously. Mr. LaRouche will start with opening remarks, which will be followed by a dialog period between Mr. LaRouche and two audience members we have here in the studio with us tonight.

So, in order to get right to the point, without any further introduction, I present to you Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, thank you. I'll do a little prelude right now. We going to be doing this, not really tonight, but in that event next Tuesday referred to, and beyond, which will be somewhat different because the climate is different, the circumstances are different, the shortness of the breath, shall we say, of history, is also significant.

What we have to think about to to take a little self-reflection on ourselves and the role we're playing here, as apart from what we're saying about the audience and the figures out there. There are certain advantages and limitations in speaking from a platform such as this, in trying to get ideas across to a population. In my knowledge, the populations—and I'm an old geezer at this thing—there are people in society who — I'll only talk about nice people, generally — there are nice people in society who are much more talented through development of their ideas, the way they think, and so forth, than others. In a process such as this, you will find, than in the general audience of the population, you'll find some people who rather quickly will get on at least the scent of the trail that's involved, and some people may take years to catch up with them.

And that's the nature of society. So that when we're speaking, as we speak, in this kind of framework, in this kind of projection, in this kind of audience, what we're addressing, largely, but not exclusively, we're addressing people who are much quicker and better informed than the average person. And that is not something that we should feel is bad. It's necessary. Because, in society, naturally, there's a very tiny part of the total population, even in the United States, for example, or in leading European nations, only a tiny part really gets it, as the word goes.

And, therefore, we try to address ourselves, as I do, knowing that the importance of what we do, and the effect of what we do, depends upon the people through whom what we say radiates. And, therefore, our primary concern is not to talk down to the audience, but, rather, to bring the audience up to the level we're trying to represent. We're going to see that tonight. We'll see that in the event in the beginning of next week. The same thing.

For example, let's take a problem: How many people in the United States, as an adult audience, really understand what the devil is going on? How many of them have any idea in the world? Because, if they were all intelligent people, none of them would vote for Obama, for example. And they would give also his rival a very hard run for his money. Because they wouldn't put up with the nonsense which is typical of the addresses of the candidates to their audiences.

What I've been seeing in the candidate performances to me is disgusting. Because we're not providing real leadership. Real leadership is uplifting the capability of the population generally to understand what the whole thing is about. The way this is done, as you can see with both Obama, who's the worst at it, and also his rival, is that they really talk down to the audience, not try to bring the audience up.

Here you've got a situation in the world, for example: what you have in Europe. Europe is about to disintegrate. Europe is going into a hyperinflation, an accelerated hyperinflation. We too are already on the brink of doing the same thing. Hyperinflation. And what is the response of the population to the election campaigns? Do they reflect any concern about that issue? They don't. And, therefore, our job, here, my job here, or other people in the same circumstances, is to focus on getting a proper message across to the audience, hoping to reach the best part of the audience, in terms of competence of understanding, and hoping that they, in turn, will be sufficiently inspired, to inspire others who need to be uplifted.

What I see in the operation, is what's been done to the population, both by the one candidate and the other: they're doing the same thing, they're talking down to the people; they're not telling them the truth. They're telling them things, like diversions: "There's something going on," or they say "Don't pay any attention to that automobile accident," even if it's theirs. That's the kind of thing you get in these campaigns.

So, our job here—and we'll be continuing in coming short weeks ahead—will be exactly that. Our position is not to try to talk down to the people, so sound popular. Our job is to tell the truth, even when its a hard truth or a difficult truth. Because you're not going to help the American people or the people in Europe by talking down to them. You've got to lift them up. You've got to inspire them.

This kind of thing which I saw with this recent performance, this side show that went on down in Florida particularly—this thing was the most disgusting thing I ever saw produced, the most immoral thing imaginable. There was not a single thing, really, about the way that think was organized, which would actually convey substantive concepts to people, including ordinary people.

The ordinary population can be reached, but you've got to go slower. Don't give this fast talk. Give them the explanation, point by point. Let them ask questions. Let them get into the thing. They don't know what thermonuclear war is. When have you seen a discussion of thermonuclear war on a presidential campaign? And, what are our Joint Chiefs of Staff most concerned about? And the military of other countries? They're concerned that we're on the edge of a thermonuclear war, which is coming out of this cockpit, or whatever, in the Middle East.

This thing is ready to go. This thing started long time ago. I've been on the case for a long time, reporting on exactly this phenomenon. And this phenomenon has crept and grown, and grown and grown; its now reached threshold level. A very slight tilt in the development of things now could trick the whole system into a thermonuclear war.

Let me be brutal about this. What we're on the edge of, as our Joint Chiefs know and say, as the Russian leadership knows and says, as key leadership in Europe, on a lesser degree, knows and says, as China knows and says, we are moments away, in terms of the history, from a thermonuclear war.

Now, what has a thermonuclear been? Don't get scared. You've got to listen to this. Because this is what you're really going to vote on. You may not know it, but you're going to really vote on whether this nation is going to be destroyed, by itself, in participating in a thermonuclear war.

Let me explain. It's really very simple to explain. Some of the technology is more difficult.

Thermonuclear war means, with Obama as President of the United States—and Obama is the present trigger for thermonuclear war throughout the world—if Obama is able to overcome the objections of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other leading people in the United States, and exert Presidential authority over those leaders of our system, the United States will soon disappear. I mean soon. It can happen in a very short period of time from now. Its on the edge always right now. Nothing has been done to stop it.

That means that what would happen is that the United States under Obama would be compelled to launch a thermonuclear attack on Russia, China, etc. Immediately, within a matter of minutes, there would be a responsive barrage from Russia, China, and other countries. Britain would be involved. France would be involved heavily. And so forth.

What would happen, is the first blast would come within a matter of minutes, within the hour. Then there would be a second one, which would come later. This would all occur within one hour and a half. One hour and a half. From that point, we don't know what part of the human species is going to be left alive. That's what is in front of all of us right now.

Obama is the keystone for launching thermonuclear war. He wasn't the start of this process, he just fell into pace on this process, and you saw it in the case of what happened in north Africa. Obama violated the Constitution, with the consent of a crooked member of Congress, conducted a war that was illegal under our Constitution, in Libya. And once he did that, he said, "OK, now we've killed our man in Libya. Now we can go on with the next war."

First of all, the man in question was a captive, a wounded captive. So the Obama forces executed him. That's crime, it's a crime under international law. But he said he had to do it. Why? In order to get on with with the next target, ha!, which was the next target in the Middle East, which is now going on.

Now this is the cockpit of the war problem. Now we've got Turkey involved. The situation is, Turkey being involved, as an aggressor against Syria, which is an operation being run—actually directed—by Obama, from the United States, with the cooperation of the British Monarchy. And other stooges are falling into line on the basis of NATO treaties, and so forth.

Once it reaches the level, where there's an actual threat or the sign of a launch of thermonuclear war, from anyone in Western Europe or the United States, within minutes, the Russian, the Chinese, and other systems, go into play.

You can go back and look at a couple decades ago, where the Russian general secretary at that time had launched a super-bomb, a super nuclear bomb. A super nuclear bomb has certain fringes of thermonuclear effect. Khrushchov, the gentleman in question, then exploded this bomb in Siberia, in order to demonstrate the power that this bomb represented. Or that was the putative explanation for the thing. This thing came up with a dark cloud which lasted for a period of time, and indicated what a real thermonuclear war would be like: a black period over the whole area of relevance, and the sign of doom.

Now in the present case, we talking about full-scale thermonuclear warfare, from all the leading powers of the planet, going into it in order to achieve some so-called goal, or to punish somebody, or something like that. Everybody who's sane, major powers which have all the capabilities necessary of a major nation—to know things, the intelligence services, a spy system, all these kinds of things—they all know it.

So there you have every one. You have Russia and the United States are actually at peace with each other in terms of military services. They're trying to negotiate a resolution of problems, which do not lead to thermonuclear war.

The President of the United States currently, and his British backers, are fault, in going full-speed ahead, hoping that they can bluff their way into getting submission, and not having to go through the war. There are even some of them who are nuts, who would go through the war, rather than let the world get out of their hands.

That is what every citizen ought to be told before going to the polls. Do they want a thermonuclear war? If Obama, in particular—and he's the most likely character do this—were to decide to launch a thermonuclear war, it's probably the case, that most of civilization would no longer exist, for some long time to come. Maybe, considering the consequences, nobody would exist.

This is the decision which the American population is not being told about, but that is the issue which may be determined by the outcome of this election! This is because what you've been given, as a people, by the candidacies, the campaigns, you've been given a bunch of crap. Explanations. Diversions. Explanation of that, explanation of this, argument about this. All of which has nothing to do with determining whether mankind as a species continues to exist.

We can deal with that problem.

If we control our own President, and control a couple of other major powers on this planet, we can prevent this from happening. But so far, Obama has no intention of letting it be prevented. So, you're going to the polls by a policy which leads toward a thermonuclear war, within a mater of a very short period of time, in terms of these events, either during this year or early next year. Because they can't postpone it much longer.

What you have, also at the same time, is a collapse, a disintegration through hyperinflation, which is now accelerating inside the United States, and accelerating more rapidly inside Europe. So, within a fairly short time, in terms of months, you reach a point at which the ability to run a thermonuclear war may be limited, or impossible, or just not done.

This is the situation. And if the public out there, the citizens, aren't getting that truth, but they're getting this crap, which I think is the only term for it, then the public is voting like a pack of idiots. Not because they're wrong, not because they're idiots, but because the candidates and other people of relevance, appear to be like idiots, by telling them fairy stories, instead of telling them the truth of the consequences of how and who they select for President and other key positions in the United States itself.

That's where we are.

Now I'll have occasion to mention this same problem on two occasions next week. But that's the theme we have to do now. You're not serious unless you raise the question and the issue of Obama's determination, together with the British, especially with Tony Blair, shall we say, with them to launch us to the brink, or over the brink, in thermonuclear war. If we go to the brink, we'll probably go over the brink, because of what's going on in the mentality of the people out there.

This fact is the fact which was never mentioned openly to the public of the United States. And asking these poor people in the public who don't know what they're getting into to vote for somebody — and I'm talking about both leading candidates — who have not told the truth, the most crucial truth about this whole election campaign period. And that's my job here; to say that, because I'm an expert in this area, this particular area. One of my few areas of real special expertise. But this is my area, I saw this thing from the beginning, in a thing I produced back in the 1990s, Storm Over Asia, and I laid out exactly how this thing was threatened to come. And there were some incidents, and I produced a television show which contained that evidence and presented that as saying "Here. You have a live case that's happening in the former Soviet territory." And we saw the implications of it were the beginning of a thermonuclear war, and we have been at that ever since then. And everybody who's competent in terms of strategic planning, in terms of military things especially, knows this. But the politicians, the ones who are lying — like the two leading candidates are. They're lying, because they both know that this is what the issue is, and they're not telling the American people.

OGDEN: If you're just tuning in, you're watching a live webcast with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche has completed his opening remarks. Now, I will say, before introducing our first questioner, much of what you just addressed is being addressed by the leadership of Russia. And as we announced last week, the missile tests of the nuclear triad that were presided over by President Vladimir Putin, also statements that were made by a leading member of the United Russia Party, Yevgeni Fyodorov, which really, who says look, these scattered wars around the world that have been building, building, building for years are heading in the direction of the inevitability of World War III, which is exactly what you addressed in what you just referenced, Storm Over Asia in 1999, and this is exactly the context for what we now see breathing down our necks in terms of the thermonuclear conflict. Now, we're going to have a short exchange back and forth with two members of the audience that are here, and I would like to ask Leandra Bernstein to come to the podium.

LEANDRA BERNSTEIN: I'd like to ask you a question, in the context of the last Presidential debate, the debate on foreign policy, and raise your attention and our audience's attention to a recent report, a report that just came out today from Fox News on exactly what was known and what was occurring over the course of approximately 6.5 hours when the U.S. Embassy was attacked in Benghazi. Essentially what had happened was that a CIA team had been told three times by their superiors, by their higher-ups, to stand down and not to rush to the aid of the members inside our embassy. Told three times when they requested permission, when they, and then against orders, the members of this team went to the consulate to evacuate our ambassadors, looking for of course, Ambassador Stevens, whom they didn't find until later. They had requested between 9pm and 12 midnight, they had requested help, but there was none. No specter gunships. There was a drone, a survey drone, that was flying overhead throughout the course of this entire incident that was basically live streaming footage to anybody who had the security clearance inside the United States, including the White House Situation Room. No special operations came.

So, that report just came out, and this is within the context of a continuing debate concerning what American influence and power should be in the world today. There was some reference in the Presidential debates to our role as nation builders. Obama referenced our role as nation builders. Perhaps we could take the example of Iraq, which is currently embroiled in a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis; or maybe Libya, where this fiasco has occurred and is continuing to yield very rotten fruit. Or maybe in Syria, where there is a civil war; where Syrian rebels are now armed with Stinger missiles which oddly enough have "Made in America," well, are made in America. And how about our nation building in Afghanistan, maybe based on the role of Great Britain in the 1840s, Great Britain in the 1870s, the U.S.S.R. in the 1970s and 1980s.

So, with that being said, I'd also like to bring to your attention a statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Charlie Rose show just this past Tuesday, which was very, very interesting; especially considering who he is, what his role has been historically, where he warned on this show of the consequences of arming rebel groups in the Middle East. Looking at the consequences of arming these rebels, and saying explicitly not to listen to Britain and France, not to assume that Saudi Arabia is our friend in this situation, and saying we should be working closely with Russia and China, in particular on the Syria question toward a workable solution, not just dictating the policy as we all come to the table.

So, I'd like to ask you, because it is the most relevant foreign policy question, what, given the world situation today and our unique role as the United States, what is the appropriate role that we should have in this context in international relations?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, we should fire Obama and Susan Rice, who are the leaders in the lies which were spread from that administration through Susan Rice during a whole series of days when she lied one day after the other about what had happened; where the White House press corps was misinformed in the same way. And now it's all clear that Obama himself knew everything from the beginning, within a matter of hours. And he was therefore lying all the way through. Now a man who lies about general warfare — and this was a part of general warfare — is actually a criminal. That President is a criminal. And he's committed many others crimes. He's caused starvation; he's caused deaths as a result of starvation and similar kinds of conditions. We no longer have a food supply anymore because of his policies. But these things are all tied together with a grand plan, which starts essentially with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you look at the figures, the actual figures of what the economy really is, not what the bunk is, we have actually since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the U.S. economy has been on a consistent, not regular, not so forth, but consistent; a consistent decline. We now have actually about 27 million people who could be considered — if the rules were kept straight — would be needing jobs. And it won't help much just to give people jobs. You may do it as an emergency measure, as Roosevelt did during the 1930s, but the intention was not to keep these kinds of lackluster jobs for people, but to keep them alive and keep them in place and located so that we could build up the economy.

And what saved the United States from being defeated by Hitler — and it was the United States that stopped Hitler, Russia also, but they all played a part, but the United States was crucial. It's when Winston Churchill, who was disgusted with his fellows there in Britain, who had been kissing the butt of Hitler all the way through. The British were the actual leading, these people were the leading supporters of the Hitler campaign. Also the President of France was the same kind of thing. That's why de Gaulle came out with his operation against precisely this. So it was things like de Gaulle's campaign, this insurgency, and the United States, Roosevelt in particular, which even before the United States was involved in the war, was taking steps knowing that the Hitler thing was dangerous and we have got to stop it. So, we, with Russia, stopped Hitler. And Russia was already in it before we got into the war formally. And what we've got now is a case in which the current President and the policies of the Anglo-American policy, which are essentially the NATO policies, are exactly of this nature. The whole thing is a stinking fraud and that's what you have to understand in this case.

Now, the case of Brzezinski, a gentleman with whom I am much acquainted. I never actually shook hands with him, but I'm very well acquainted with him from my period back in the 1970s and so forth.

Now, it's quite a turnabout. I understand the turnabout, because Brzezinski was a lackey. That is, he's not a lackey in the ordinary sense, but a lackey in the sense that rather than operating on his own instincts, he was following a recipe that was dictated to him by circumstance. In other words, he didn't have to be told actually "You do this." He understood that the way he was going to get ahead and keep ahead was to play the game that was predicted to him to play. And so he was the key who set into motion some terrible things that happened in Central Asia; one of his accomplishments. Now he did all this on the presumption that the United States was involved in a war to destroy the Soviet Union. So therefore, and similar kinds of things were brought into consideration later. So what happened is, that he — in that phase — was a lackey for that process.

Now, being an old Christian of Polish ancestry and so forth, he now looks at the world and says "Look, that time is over. There no longer is a Soviet Union to worry about. There are no longer these other kinds of things. I am an old man; I am a Catholic, I'm a devoted Christian. And in my time, as I'm reaching a terminal state in my life, what am I going to do with the remainder of my life?" And therefore you have the case where someone who has acted like a reprobate from the stand looking in from the outside, and you find that they're coming out with a completely different policy. It's their own policy for a change. An old man who's not going to go out of this world without taking some honor with him.

JASON ROSS: Well, on the subject of nation building, I wanted to talk about our nation a little bit. But first, I just want to, for people, it's worth reminding people that although for weeks from the Obama administration that everything was the result of a stupid YouTube video, Lyn you had very quickly identified it as 9/11 part two, which some of our contacts may have thought "Well, four people were killed; this hardly seems the magnitude of 9/11 part one. Why make the comparison?" But as we've found out more and more about the cover-up that's been taking place, about the obvious connection which was clear to you from the beginning, of the networks with Saudi Arabia, the terrorist networks that are being protected in the 28 pages, etc., it's clear this is a coordinated, it is the same kind of grouping. And that when you look at the crisis that we're seeing in these different nations — as Leandra discussed, Syria, Libya, Mali, the attack in Sudan by the Israelis — this isn't, these aren't individual crises, and as you said this is an intention to inflame the situation and that is itself the policy.

Look, I wanted to ask you about something domestic here. You wrote in your new paper which is called "Man's Crucial Future Role in Space," you wrote about some very intriguing things about Mitt Romney. I wanted to read a paragraph from this and ask you a question. You wrote that "A Governor Romney believing himself a 'supreme businessman' in the White House, should make both him and any competent economist shudder—if one could find such an economist these days. Given the choices which confront the United States at this state of the national election-process, a President Romney in 'the White House,' might be tolerable, if the 'businessman' side of his nature were subordinated to the implications of the original U.S. Glass-Steagall law. Without that law, the U.S.A. were now doomed, and that would now come on immediately."

Here's what I wanted to ask you about. President Obama was recently interviewed by Rolling Stone, which you might not think is the biggest economics journal around, but he said something very intriguing in it. He was asked about economics, and Obama said, "There is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s." He then goes on to say that he'd like to change how people get compensated instead, as though executives making money was the cause of the world financial situation. I'd just like to get your thoughts on uh, if you'd like to say more about Romney and a businessman versus a scientific economist, and about I suppose what Obama said is hardly a surprise, but maybe you'd like to say something about it.

LAROUCHE: Well, I would not overestimate Obama's intelligence. He has a style which he has been trained in. He was also, he's a very strange fellow, because he was picked out of obscurity with a strange aura around the question of parentage and identity and citizenship and all these kinds of things. But he's a stereotype, and you say "Why would, knowing what the, shall we say, very poor quality of intellect that this man represents" — and he is really a very clear, poor quality of intellect — "Why the devil would Her Majesty the Queen want to pick him to become the President of the United States?" And that's what happened. Here he was supported by a flood of drug money coming in from northern Britain in the final stage of the pre-campaign. And that's how he got into power. I don't think that Hillary understood, or ever came to understand exactly what the problem was.

But Obama is only a figurehead; he's only a tool. Tony Blair is the one who controls him. Tony Blair is the guy who organized the war in Iraq, when the British establishment, including me — I wasn't British establishment, but I was playing with them on this thing — on the importance of preventing Tony Blair from dragging the world into another war in the Middle East. And you know how long that war went on, and everybody involved, including the relevant State Department officials at that time knew that that was a fraud; and said so. But, combinations of forces got the war in Iraq going. The setting up of the war in Iraq was necessary to set up the whole operation now. The same thing is true of what happened in Libya — the same thing.

So, this whole process is a fakery. First of all, go back to 9/11 to understand this fakery. What was 9/11 originally? 9/11, and this is the thing that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, this is their big lie on 9/11. 9/11, to my knowledge, my knowledge from people I work with directly in many such institutions. 9/11 was caused by what was called the British BAE. It's a British arms-trading organization. And with Saudi oil, they ran a big swindle.

So, what they did was they peeled off some money — a large amount of money — to launch what became 9/11. The job was done by the joint action of the British Monarchy and by the Saudi Monarchy. They did it, and no one else, except people dragged in with them! As a matter of fact, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, was one of the key persons, who personally was involved in directing and training the people they recruited to conduct 9/11! Now, that's well known. It's well known by some people. But both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have put a lid on it! And when Obama promised, when he coming into the Presidency that he would open up the books on this information, he didn't. And he won't do it now — he insists not.

But the fact is, that 9/11, and 9/11 has a double significance now, because there was a 9/11 that killed some Americans, diplomats, in Libya! And it was dated to go, 9/11! It was a personal arrangement by President Obama. He personally, with Susan Rice, orchestrated the frameup. I don't know how many times, the Republican rival for Obama thought about that. I know that Senator McCain did know about that, and talked about it; so the Republicans are not ignorant of this whole thing. And what happened, 9/11-Two, which was done personally, by the British and their stooge Obama, why did they target Libya? Why did they target Benghazi? Why did they target the people in that location? No such operation in that nature was done, except there.

Now this was the area in which Obama got his first military victory: The destruction of Libya. So, that kind of process. And now, this thing is continuing, and that's what this thing is all about.

What we have here, why would the British Monarchy, and the British Monarchy is a more powerful and a more important institution than the United Kingdom laws: It's an empire. It had been ever since 1763. The empire was established with that victory which took over India, Canada, all this sort of stuff. So it was the British Empire which has done this, and directed it.

What's the policy of the British Empire, in terms of the monarchy? To reduce the population of this planet, rapidly, from a present, estimated 7 billion persons to 1 or even less. That's the policy of the British Empire. That's the Green policy! That's the Greenie policy is that fraud! That's why you don't have enough to eat in the United States any more, because of the Greenie policy! That's why you don't have jobs in the United States any more, because of the Greenie policy. That's why many people are going to die, at an accelerated rate in the United States, unless that is changed!

And so, Obama is nothing but a stooge, picked by the British Queen, who had drug-money financing going into areas like Mexico and across the border into the United States, to secure the initial victory of Obama in the election campaign for President. He's nothing but a puppet! He's not real!

And so, what you're looking at this: We're looking at the attempt to set up, a new Roman Empire, which the British Empire has always been since it actually was established; it was established actually about 1784. And it was established by the same person, who set up the whole process. It was an empire, which was based, first of all on the conquest of India, and what spread from there. And it was this issue, which came from 1763, is when the first victory came in establishing the British Empire, and it came through that process, and it became the driver for the American Revolution, and the driver for the support of the American Revolution from nations of Continental Europe.

So that's what we're dealing with. We're dealing with, not with Obama — Obama is nothing! He's nothing but a puppet, and a very bad one at that. So he's not that important! He's only important like a disease is important, especially a fatal one, or a very nasty one.

The issue is the British Empire, and the Saudi Kingdom and the British Empire are one and the same institution: It's the British Empire. They are the ones who have run this operation. How are all the operations in the east being done, in Europe, who are they being done? They're being done, by the Saudis. But who are the Saudis? The Saudis are nothing but the partners, with the British Empire, in conjunction of the junction point of the BAE, which is the British Royal Family operation. And that's what the truth is!

Why should we have this thing? We've had this ever since the killing of Jack Kennedy. Why was Kennedy killed? There's a reason for it. It was a very complicated killing; it involved people from Spain, who were operating in Spain, who came into Mexico; and the killers jumped the border, killed the President of the United States and were past the border, back into Mexico, before anybody knew what was happening. And then they said the Oswald nonsense — myth.

But Jack was murdered because of what he was doing as an American. And what he was doing, first of all, which was opposed by Jack Kennedy, which was opposed Eisenhower, it was opposed by Douglas MacArthur, was: Don't get the United States into a land war in Asia. That was the policy. And they couldn't get him off that stick. So they killed him! And then, they murdered his brother, later, to make sure the brother would not be a living Presidential candidate. Then we got the other things.

But if you look at the effect, of what was done by the killing of Kennedy, that war, and the things that went with it, destroyed the United States. It destroyed, first of all, the morality. It was source of the drug addiction inside the United States. And these kinds of things.

So, we're looking at history now, we're looking at history on the grand scale, and we're looking at it on the scale of imperialism, not simple nation-states but imperial power! And imperial power works in this way, and always has, ever since the Roman Empire, it's been the same kind of thing known in history. And that's what we're up against.

And so the problem is, our own people, our own citizens, and even many people who are supposed to know better, who have the advantages, are sitting around in that process. We are being destroyed from within. And 9/11? Why did the British and the Saudis pull a 9/11, as 9/11, in Benghazi? Why did they do that? They made it precise: 9/11!

Now what's the argument? Obama keeps saying, that he has nothing to do with this kind of problem, the 9/11 crew is over. He's a liar! He's working for it!

OGDEN: Now, just in terms of the second half of what Jason brought up in his question, you might want to address that, too.

Let me just say, Obama's opposition to Glass-Steagall is not merely something based on financial reasoning, or something like that. This is an integral part of his role as the defense of the British Empire, as well. And as has been said by, for example, the Russian anti-drug chief, Viktor Ivanov, if you want to shut down the international dope trade, you institute a global Glass-Steagall, you break up the criminal banks.

This was also well documented in the Senate Levin-Coburn report, that one of the major sources of funding of the first 9/11, was being laundered through drug money laundering and other money laundering, through Saudi banks, and that this was what was being channelled through Prince Bandar, into the United States to fund these 9/11 hijackers.

Again: This is a financial empire, in the way that you posed it, going all the way back to the British East India Company of 1763. I just wanted to give you a chance to address that part of Jason's question.

Also, in light of what you brought up in your opening remarks, in terms of the looming hyperinflation, in both Europe and the United States, if you want to.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. What I said, practically gets to the crucial point of it, that's why I limited myself on that, in response. But it's quite true that we're in a situation... what I would say, in supplementing and what was in my mind, in thinking about this, what we're dealing with is, what're we going to do about this? Now, it's simple, if we could, by magic lantern or something, if we could get the American citizens who've been lied to during the whole election campaign, to understand a bit of the truth, then the Obama question would cease to exist, in the form it is now.

In that case, you would have the disclosure, the legal disclosure, of the truth about 9/11. It may not be the whole truth. I happen to know a significant part of the truth, of the whole truth; but what is needed, is the whole truth. Because without the whole truth, at this stage, you're not going to get the Americans to understand it. They don't want to hear about that! They don't want to know about it! And therefore, that's played upon.

But Obama, on orders, from London, has actually gone to suppress the truth! The evidence is there! It's legal evidence, it's in the possession of the Congress, essentially; it's Congressional knowledge. It's not guesswork, it's solid, hard evidence! I know some of the facts — I don't know all of the facts, but I know enough of the facts to define what's happened, and what was done, how this thing was set up. And therefore, I think the only solution, is to get the American people, suddenly to realize what the ugly reality is, of this whole situation! We're dealing, still, with an empire.

Now, there's another aspect to this thing, which is even more important, which is lurking, always in the back of my mind: We've reached a point, where thermonuclear war, general thermonuclear war, is now the apex of all general warfare! You can not have a general warfare on this planet presently, you can try to build up to it, but you can't have it, unless you have a thermonuclear war. It's not possible.

Therefore, we have to remove, not only the people who are creating this war, this idea of thermonuclear war, including this current President of ours; I don't think that the Republican is necessarily committed to a contrary position. He'd probably just go along with it; not support it, but go along with it. So, it's not going to be removed by him. There's nothing in his candidacy which shows he's prepared to remove this! He didn't even mention the problem! A businessman may have his eyes on some other issue as being more important. So that's the problem.

Now, the question, again, what is the implication of this? We're now confronted with a kind of method, a method of warfare, called thermonuclear fusion warfare, which inherently, when used in general warfare, and it can only be used in general warfare, means the extinction of the human species, virtually. Well, therefore, that means that we have to change the law, among nations, accordingly.

We have to first of all, recognize that warfare, general warfare, is no longer possible, because thermonuclear technology, and even more advanced technologies are going to be a natural outgrowth of what is happening now, through space development, and things like that. I mean, within a generation, we can have people visiting Mars, if we wish to, and they'll get there within about a week, from the Moon. That's going to be possible, technically, in about one more generation, 25-year period; that's what it takes, if we're really serious. And that will be very important to us, for the defense of Earth in the future, because of all these rocks out there, which are threatening to destroy our planet for us, or the people on the planet. So therefore, we have no choice but to go to Mars, in some sense in the way it's going now, we have to develop a system to save Earth from being destroyed by this rubbish which is flying through space, crossing the orbit of Earth all the time, and other things!

So therefore, we can not stop technological progress: That would be insane! It can not be done, can not be tolerated. Therefore, we have to have, in that circumstance, we have to have new rules about government. Now, it's necessary, on one side, to have sovereign, national governments. Why? Because of culture: If you want to have a productive people, you've got to give them a language-culture and its relations, which allow them to become real thinkers, particularly when you're going into science like this! So therefore, we can not stop science, or just ban thermonuclear fusion as a way of dealing with this problem.

We have to actually find a way in which nations no longer make war! Not because we outlaw that — but we will — but because we have urgent concerns of the people of these nations, for their own development, for the development of their children to discover the meaning of their lives. Look, the great tragedy today, in the decadence of society, today, is most people think that you just die, and you're gone. It's all over.

Now, in a Greenie society, that's the mentality. So a Greenie society produces people, who are degenerates, inherently degenerates, not because they wanted to be degenerates, but because the law makes the degenerates, the Green law. And therefore, we have to go forward with progress, with scientific-driven progress. We must do that.

But then, we have to think about how do we change that? And what's needed in this is not just a political or economic change, it's inducing people to understand what mankind really is. Most people talk about mankind, talk about heritages and so forth, they really don't know what they're talking about. It's not their fault, because they weren't taught that. But the fact of the of the matter is, the human being is unique. The human species is unique. We don't know of any other species in the universe, certainly not on Earth, which has this quality.

Every other species depends upon past experience. No other species we know of goes beyond past experience. And the only way we get, for example, animals to be more intelligent, why? We train them. Who trains them? Human beings. So we will train animals and care for animals in ways which make them more intelligent than that animal species would be without our presence, and without our intervention. But the point is, where does this come from in the animals? It comes transmitted from human beings, from human culture, transmitted to animals in this kind of relationship, like dogs, pet dogs and so forth; that that's part of the process.

What we should be recognizing from that lesson, is the fact that we have not trained people to think better of themselves, than dogs think of dogs.

Because, what's the meaning of our life? For the Greenie, life ends with your death, and there's nothing that comes after that! No improvement! No benefit! You just go through the routine, like a slave; like a feudal serf, you're not allowed to think of the future, to change the future. The acute thing about mankind, is that we, are creatures of the future.

Now, for example, why have I been so successful in forecasting, and why have all my putative rivals been so dumb? Because they believe in deductive forecasting. Which means they're trying to prove, that what can happen, depends upon past experience. The fact is that human progress is based on scientific discoveries of higher orders of principle. And the progress of mankind has always been in that direction, is to move mankind from whatever the achievement, like technological and cultural achievement, move to a higher level! And the idea of the parent, which keeps the adult, growing adult reaching old age, into happiness, is the fact that they are witnessing and participating in, what their children and grandchildren are doing in the way of progress! They have the living experience of the progress of the human species, and say, "My life does not end, my life is transmitted, with all its virtues, is transmitted into the disposition of our descendants." We live in the achievement of our descendants.

Our moral obligation, is to provide that consciousness to our people, so that are conditioned now, to live in admiration of the fulfillment of their life, in what is achieved by their descendants, in terms of changing the laws of behavior, on this planet and beyond.

That's what I think is the crucial issue.

BERNSTEIN: Well, on the subject of man versus animals, I'd like to ask you a question about the party system, political parties. And I've been struck by your continuing discussion of essentially a nonpartisan, or anti-partisan, government. And you've stated numerous times publicly that you'd been borrowing the best from the Republicans, from the Democrats, from members of the military, retired, and so forth; but, I'm still unclear, and I think that others are unclear about how you would actually constitute this kind of government. Because throughout American history, what you've found is there are champions of great changes in the nation, in line with our founding principles.

And at the same time, there is capitulation to partisanship. There's capitulation, there are compromises, there are also reasonable compromises that have occurred in our nation's history. For example, our first Treasury Secretary, standing behind Thomas Jefferson in his election against the traitor Aaron Burr, even though Thomas Jefferson was fundamentally at odds with Hamilton on the issue of a critical part of our Constitution, the national banking system. And that was a compromise. But it was a compromise which was in the interest of the nation as a whole. And it's an interesting position that any politician has in this country, where, unlike any other profession, they're expected to risk their lives, their credibility, to sacrifice everything for the country! And there are few other professions as potentially noble, as that.

So, in line with that, we have had these champions of the cause for the national good. John Quincy Adams, of course, comes to mind, not only for his continuing fight, despite being shut down, forbidden to speak on the floor of the House, on the issue of slavery!

LAROUCHE: Hmm!

BERNSTEIN: Continued that fight, to hold the nation together. His fight, even though the friends of Andrew Jackson shut him up on the House floor, when he was speaking in defense of the National Bank, which Jackson was destroying, he continued that fight. And he worked, as he himself was a beacon, for the interests of the nation, across party lines.

And you've seen these kinds of champions. You saw it in George Norris, a Republican, who was taken over to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's side, and became the namesake for Norris Dam on the Tennessee River: The first dam constructed in the Tennessee Valley Authority, was named after this man.

So, not to go on too long on great people in our history, but you do see that these seismic shifts in U.S. policy, have all had these champions, and others fall in line behind them. But concerning your opening remarks, where do we find these champions? And the bigger question is, what is the rallying cry?

LAROUCHE: Well, that question was implicitly answered by me, in one sense, by the fact that right now, our citizens, in the larger part, are being treated as dopes! They're being treated as dopes by the media; they're being treated as dopes by the politicians, who are doing a simplistic double-talk and dance, rather than telling the people the truth, which is essential to their vital interests and the interests of their children.

This whole election campaign that we've just seen coming toward a conclusion now, has been a farce! Because it carefully avoided addressing any of the real issues which will determine the solving of the problems we're confronted with! The whole thing was a fraud! Because the people are kept ignorant by being babied.

And how does this babying work? It's done by the party system, sometimes called the "potty system." (You knew that was coming.) [laughter] Well, that's what it is!

The party system is, how do people behave? How was it done in ancient Rome? The same method was done in ancient Rome: it was done largely with things like auditoriums, mass assemblies in which the mass assemblies would vote up and down, various things. In Rome, shall we kill the guy, or shall we let him live? Hmm? The Roman system! That was Roman justice! That was Roman populism, hmm? Go out and kill your neighbor, the slave. That sort of thing. Kill Christians on Sunday, that sort of thing. Right?

And this is the problem. What're we doing now? How do our citizens react to an election campaign, a national election campaign? They act like people sitting, cheering in the bleachers for the assassinations being conducted in the Roman arena! They say, it's all popular opinion! Everybody's afraid of popular opinion! They're slaves of popular opinion. And popular opinion is the source of our sufferings, is popular opinion.

Only popular opinion, the mob impulse, controls the United States, it controls the opinion of our people. Well, look at the lack of education of our people, the lack of, the truth is not told to them. The fact that they believe in the good — the good is whatever the Roman arena, whatever the emperor says in the Roman arena: Thumbs up! Thumbs down! That's what you've just seen in the whole election process now.

The whole election process here has been a fraud! It's why I have a difficulty, you know, in dealing with the problems that the other candidate has, the Republican candidate. Because, he, too, is a victim! He's a victim, if he wants to win, he's got to be a prostitute, too! He's got to cater to the kind of issues that the public is ready to receive!

And the only thing that's ever done any good in the history of mankind, are people who don't go along with popular opinion, but demand progress to the future, and demand that our people think, not acting like a lynch mob, or a crowd at a football event, or even a baseball event, which is less odious than that.

But the point is, that we have a system, a social system, based on the popular opinion, and this was what happened, guess when? Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson is the guy, he was pretty stupid at that point. He was an old, snarling bastard, essentially. He really had very little to do, with what was going on with the policy-shaping of that time, but he was the instrument, where they would sort of stick him with a pin or something, and he would go off! And then the whole crowd, the banking crowd, the British banking crowd, which was actually running the operation, and he'd play his little game, of being nasty, and then this crowd who were actually controlled from London, through the New York banking system, which controlled the whole operation, created the takeover of part of the United States by the slavery system.

The establishment of the slavery system, virtually destroyed the United States: It was intended to. Lincoln pulled miracles, to save the United States, and succeeded. But then, the same kind of thing came — you thought the slave system's dead? Yeah, but Wall Street's still there! And Wall Street has been nothing but a system of thievery, directed from London, always directed from London. Whenever you look at Wall Street, you've got to look at London, and you've got to look at Saudi Arabia as part of the London operation.

So therefore, the problem is, that we are suckered; we're suckered by belief in popular opinion! We don't stop to think! Go to popular opinion, first, and don't pass Go, or something, right? Don't think! And our people are entertained in a way to induce them to "don't think"! It's not their fault, but it's the fault of a tradition of popularism, as populism is otherwise called. It's that problem.

If we want freedom, you have to have freedom built into the mind of the citizen. Into their education, into what you promote in them, into the opportunities you develop for them. The sense of their joy in participation in something which is real accomplishment, rather than gratification, rather than just getting a kiss on the butt, which is what they get now.

And therefore, we do not allow ourselves the indulgence of competent leadership. We have the kind of crap we've had throughout this entire election campaign on this Presidential campaign: It's pure crap, because it's pabulum! You distract the population over issues which really are not important! Except they are significant, because they are substituted for the real issue!

Don't you think the American people should know why they're not getting food? Neither of these candidates told them why they weren't getting food, why they're going to go short on food this winter. Why there are 27 million people who, by all sorts of jiggery and so forth, are actually people in the working force who have no employment! And a death rate in that direction is very high.

So that's the problem. And we have to recognize that what people accept as generally accepted opinion, is the enemy of us all.

ROSS: All right. Well, on the subject of our species: The human species is certainly unlike any other. If you look at the chart of human population over the history of, at least the recent history, it resembles more the evolution of life as a whole, than of any individual species. Now, that entire distinction between our species and the rest of life is completely ignored by the Greenie outlook, which goes beyond that to impose a false idea even on the purely biological aspects of nature, the idea of stasis: That nature as a whole tends towards a fixed condition, which is belied by the history of life. It's not true about the conditions on our Earth: Even if you just look over tens of thousands of years, you see massive changes, in climate, in all sorts of things on our own planet.

Now, right now, the outlook, it's very clearly used as a tool for the depopulation goal of the imperial outlook you had mentioned. Where, right now, corn prices are going through the roof, yet farmers are unable to get any relief from the Federal government on the renewable fuels mandate! So, corn that could be going to livestock, is instead being turned into gasoline.

So, this whole approach doesn't make any sense economically, and it has got an incredible evil within it. The outlook that it creates in people, in particular the young, of conceiving of themselves as a burden on the Earth. I mean, it's essentially an outlook of suicide, and it's contradicted by even just recently, a press release on a study that came out from NASA Goddard just a week ago, that, using some of our telescopes to look into the past at very ancient galaxies, they found that even on the sale of galaxies as a whole, there's an actual trend towards development: That galaxies have become more and more ordered, like the way we see them today, like our galaxy.

So, if the general guiding theory of our nation is that people are bad, that makes it very hard to get anything done, and to have the kind of culture that you said is required for science and for anything else! Would you like to say anything about that?

LAROUCHE: Well, this another specialty of mine, which you know, of course! You knew this! It's not a secret.

As you find, in Bach, and others, in Classical musical composition, you step outside sense-perception. Because it's not the sound in sense-perception, in Classical music which makes it function. It's entirely outside the senses! But what is like a shadow, flickers across the sensorium, and you recognize that shadow, even though it has no voice. And what people should have — I'm not going to take this up here, but identify it — people should have what is accessible knowledge, in terms of the nature of Classical music, what the difference is between Classical music, as since Bach, and what happened among the so-called Romantics.

The Romantics, including Liszt, are morally degenerates. Wagner is a typification of moral degeneracy. What happened with the 20th-century innovations, is moral degeneracy. And the loss of access to Classical music composition, is one of the reasons why we have a deterioration in the intellectual quality of our population.

Now, what does this mean? And this is really the advanced and important stuff: This is the advanced course. We depend, even many scientists who should know better, but don't, that sense-perception is not the basis of scientific knowledge. But rather, it is more in the nature of the same quality as Bach's methods of composition. In other words, it's the same thing which Kepler defined in his vicarious hypothesis, the same principle. So that, with Nicholas of Cusa, for example, who was the author of that part of the thing, we've always had, in advanced cultures in mankind, or relatively advanced cultures, we've always had an understanding, that sense-perception is not the foundation of human knowledge! It is the foundation of generally, animal knowledge.

The difference is also, no animal could ever make a systemic invention, by animal means. Only the human being can do it, and the number of people who can qualify as human beings, on that basis, is diminishing.

The reason you find wildness and sickness among young generations now, is for that reason. First of all they have no prospect of employment; their family members of which they're part, have no access to guaranteed opportunity for progress. They are also being more and more unemployed. We have essentially, calculably, if you take all the figures into account, we have about 25-27 million people, who are without unemployment, who are actually, technically, in the labor force. What do you think that's doing to our people? Our population is being destroyed by these kinds of policies! And that's what the whole problem's about.

But the other side, is the brilliant part: Is, two things, we don't really teach physical science. We teach a substitute for physical science, which is based on mathematics. And mathematics as such, is not creative. You see what many modern mathematicians are doing is just junk, it has no value in the real world! It has no significance in the real world, and yet, it's a popular feature in the universities, at least increasingly.

What we're looking for is a stimulation of the individual personality, from childhood on, to see implications: Social implications, for example. I mean, for example, the education of young children, in kindergartens and so forth, from then on, it's always an attempt to get something of the unseen, beyond, involved, and make it familiar to the child! But if the child never has a sense of the unseen, which is real, because it's not just sense-perception, but it's like how to do something, make something more beautiful, for example. The idea of beauty as different from sense-perception, as such, is a very important measure of this kind of thing.

And what has happened, we have a cultural degeneration, which has occurred in European civilization, since about 1815. We went into a more emphasis on this Romantic crap, of Liszt and so forth, Wagner, that kind of nonsense; but we had a few musicians, and that culture, that musical culture, that scientific culture, has been driven away! We've had a diminishing number, percentile of the educated population, who actually understand that. They all tend to be mathematical reductionists, and mathematical calculations are based on sense-perception! It's just a human extrapolation of sense-perception.

It's actually Classical artistic composition, which takes us into the area of true invention, including true scientific, physical invention. And that's what's shut off now. I saw that more and more, in the transition that I experienced from the pre-World War II education and what evolved afterward. There was a distinct degeneration in the concept of science, to what we call a reductionist degeneration, where actual creativity — innovation and creativity, of course, are not the same thing. You can innovate freely in other ways. But actual creativity, which is typified by Classical musical composition as an example, which is the true source, like the case of Max Planck, for example, or Einstein — absolutely, completely different than any of this stuff from Bertrand Russell and similar kinds.

And what we need, of course, is a sense of this, and it has to start with the adults, because it's the adults that have to train the children: And therefore we need that change in education. It's important. And that's what this, really, is about. People are not serious — you get the serious people are treated like kooks, like the people who cheered for Curiosity, were exulted in that thing, and properly so! Because they captured a spirit of science, real spirit of science, doing the impossible and doing what is actually impossible, by standard reasons, is creativity. And that's what we're short on right now.

OGDEN: Good. So, that's our final question, and that brings a conclusion to our webcast. I'll say again, that next Tuesday, Mr. LaRouche will be making a special appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., at 9:30 in the morning. And then, that will be followed next Friday, at this time, 8 o'clock, with the final one of these series of webcasts before the elections. But we will all, of course, be on the stage after the election occurs as well.

So, please send in your questions for next week, and, absolutely, please contribute to LaRouche PAC. Thank you for watching, and that brings the conclusion to our broadcast tonight.